Looking at used Ford Rangers. Interested what is the best engine/transmission combo over the last 10-12 years or any related info. Thanks!
Ford Rangers.. questions
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
- Status
I think they hardly changed at all during that time frame aside from very minor interior and exterior changes.
I believe some of the earlier SOHC had timing chain chattering issues. Pretty sure it had something to do with the material the guides were made out of. I don't think it caused any major problems though, and was worked out in later years.
4 cyls are 2.5L Lima and later 2.3L Duratec(2wd only). 6 cyls are 3.0L(eventually was phased out) or 4.0L SOHC. Both 6's can be mated to 4wd. All engines can be had in auto or manual configuration.
I had an older 4.0L OHV ext cab with an auto and 4wd. I liked it a lot and wished I kept it.
I believe some of the earlier SOHC had timing chain chattering issues. Pretty sure it had something to do with the material the guides were made out of. I don't think it caused any major problems though, and was worked out in later years.
4 cyls are 2.5L Lima and later 2.3L Duratec(2wd only). 6 cyls are 3.0L(eventually was phased out) or 4.0L SOHC. Both 6's can be mated to 4wd. All engines can be had in auto or manual configuration.
I had an older 4.0L OHV ext cab with an auto and 4wd. I liked it a lot and wished I kept it.
I have owned several with 3.0 and 4.0 OHV engines
with 5 speed trans and they were very durable
and low maint. The 4.0 OHV is noisy on startup
even when new, but keeps on running. I like 5w30
in the 3.0 and 10w30 in the 4.0
I'm not comfortable with the OHC version timing
chain setups.
with 5 speed trans and they were very durable
and low maint. The 4.0 OHV is noisy on startup
even when new, but keeps on running. I like 5w30
in the 3.0 and 10w30 in the 4.0
I'm not comfortable with the OHC version timing
chain setups.
The engines are all pretty bulletproof. The 4.0 SOHC had timing chain issues until about 2003. Later ones had the problem fixed. It was introduced in the Ranger in 2001. 2000 and older have the pushrod 4.0. The automatic transmissions are pretty good but you HAVE to change the fluid regularly. The manual transmissions are very durable.
All of the choices are pretty good. What are you looking for? Fuel economy? Torque?
I've owned a 2.5L I4/M5OD (manual), pushrod 4.0L V6/4R55E (4 speed a/t), and a 3.0L V6/5R44E (5 speed a/t). No major problems at all.
My '95 Explorer had the pushrod 4.0, 4R55E, ControlTrac 4WD with a Dana 35 front / 8.8" rear and 3.27 gears. It had the usual minor Ford issues at that age...clogged DPFE sensor, sicky IAC valve, but was bulletproof reliable. This engine burned NO oil with over 158K miles on it.
My '01 Ranger had the 2.5, M5OD manual, and 7.5" rear end with 3.73 gears. No problems to speak of. The check engine light never came on during the time I owned this truck, up to 93,000 miles. It got up to 28 MPG on the highway. The 2.3 Duratec is more powerful, just as reliable, and can get over 30 MPG on the highway.
My current truck, an '02 Ranger, has the 3.0 Vulcan, 5R44E, and a 7.5" rear end with 3.73 gears. Its one weak spot is the cam synchronizer. It's best to replace it as soon as it starts to make noise, and always use a Motorcraft replacement. Some engines never have this problem, but it's not unusual. I replaced the one in my truck at 60K miles. Right now it has 107K miles and runs like new.
I have never had a single drivetrain problem out of any of my trucks aside from a leaking xfer case output shaft seal on my Explorer (easy fix). The transmissions and axles have been completely trouble free with regular maintenance. The engines have been trouble free as well aside from cheap sensors and the cam synchronizer. I've never had an engine problem on a Ranger that wasn't fixed in 30 minutes. They are really solid vehicles.
I've owned a 2.5L I4/M5OD (manual), pushrod 4.0L V6/4R55E (4 speed a/t), and a 3.0L V6/5R44E (5 speed a/t). No major problems at all.
My '95 Explorer had the pushrod 4.0, 4R55E, ControlTrac 4WD with a Dana 35 front / 8.8" rear and 3.27 gears. It had the usual minor Ford issues at that age...clogged DPFE sensor, sicky IAC valve, but was bulletproof reliable. This engine burned NO oil with over 158K miles on it.
My '01 Ranger had the 2.5, M5OD manual, and 7.5" rear end with 3.73 gears. No problems to speak of. The check engine light never came on during the time I owned this truck, up to 93,000 miles. It got up to 28 MPG on the highway. The 2.3 Duratec is more powerful, just as reliable, and can get over 30 MPG on the highway.
My current truck, an '02 Ranger, has the 3.0 Vulcan, 5R44E, and a 7.5" rear end with 3.73 gears. Its one weak spot is the cam synchronizer. It's best to replace it as soon as it starts to make noise, and always use a Motorcraft replacement. Some engines never have this problem, but it's not unusual. I replaced the one in my truck at 60K miles. Right now it has 107K miles and runs like new.
I have never had a single drivetrain problem out of any of my trucks aside from a leaking xfer case output shaft seal on my Explorer (easy fix). The transmissions and axles have been completely trouble free with regular maintenance. The engines have been trouble free as well aside from cheap sensors and the cam synchronizer. I've never had an engine problem on a Ranger that wasn't fixed in 30 minutes. They are really solid vehicles.
Superbuick96
Site Donor 2025
MY 2004 4.0L 4.10 5 speed combo has been good to me so far. 46K in 7 years. All the info I read on hear is spot on, good info. Ive observed anwhere from 15-19.5 mpg just like the sticker said. Someone said the 4.0 was noisy. Id say that is just on start up, the automatic high idle which kicks down after a few seconds. It actually sounds pretty cool. We all know the 2.3 is a dog, but will get you some of the best mpg a pickup truck can get. My friend has the 3.0 in is 2000 Ranger which he as owned since new, the engine hasnt caused him any problems, but he said although it has enough torqu its kind of a dog too. As far as the 4.0 ovc ive had my Ranger filled to the gills and performance did not suffer at all, couldnt even tell it was loaded up. Not on highway, or city. The 207hp/238t rating scoot that RAnger around effortlessly
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DrDusty86
The 4 cylinders are WAY underpowered. I took my buddy's 05' 4cyl/5speed to pick up a radiator and my foot never got up off the floor except to make a shift, and I never got to use 5th gear.
Are you certain that was an '05?
That was essentially the same engine as the Fusion and Mazda6 tuned for torque and without VVT.
It's right in line with the Toyota 2RZ-FE in power production. Little less torque than the Toyota but it has a little less displacement.
It's within a couple of horsepower of the Vulcan 3.0. It's a little short on torque production vs the Vulcan but gets significantly better gas mileage.
The older Lima (Pinto engine)SOHC 2.3s and 2.5s made quite a bit less hp. Compared to the 2.2 in the S10 and Sonoma and the 2.5 Jeep engine in the Dakota, it did well enough. And they were certainly reliable. But they weren't exactly speed demons.
The Vulcan 3.0 is durable. If you are not concerned with absolute hp production (vs. the V6es in the Frontier and Tacoma) it's hard to beat the Vulcan 3.0 for durability.
My primary problem with the 4.0 Ranger/B4000 is that you can get virtually the same mpg in a 4.3 Silverado/Sierra, 4.2 F-150, or 3.7 Ram. I think I would rather just have an '04 Heritage F-150 STX 5-speed or SWB Sierra SL 5-speed.
The 4 cylinders are WAY underpowered. I took my buddy's 05' 4cyl/5speed to pick up a radiator and my foot never got up off the floor except to make a shift, and I never got to use 5th gear.
Are you certain that was an '05?
That was essentially the same engine as the Fusion and Mazda6 tuned for torque and without VVT.
It's right in line with the Toyota 2RZ-FE in power production. Little less torque than the Toyota but it has a little less displacement.
It's within a couple of horsepower of the Vulcan 3.0. It's a little short on torque production vs the Vulcan but gets significantly better gas mileage.
The older Lima (Pinto engine)SOHC 2.3s and 2.5s made quite a bit less hp. Compared to the 2.2 in the S10 and Sonoma and the 2.5 Jeep engine in the Dakota, it did well enough. And they were certainly reliable. But they weren't exactly speed demons.
The Vulcan 3.0 is durable. If you are not concerned with absolute hp production (vs. the V6es in the Frontier and Tacoma) it's hard to beat the Vulcan 3.0 for durability.
My primary problem with the 4.0 Ranger/B4000 is that you can get virtually the same mpg in a 4.3 Silverado/Sierra, 4.2 F-150, or 3.7 Ram. I think I would rather just have an '04 Heritage F-150 STX 5-speed or SWB Sierra SL 5-speed.
The 2.3 Duratech is 143HP; not underpowered. I have a 2006
I used to drive a 2.3 Duratec at work and I also did not find it underpowered at all. I thought it was quite a peppy engine with good acceleration. My 4.0 SOHC is way more powerful and fun though
It was an 05' I'm sure fellas, I had it foot to the floor just to maintain 65mph.. It has a 20.? gallon tank and he is lucky to get 250 miles between fillups. my 3.0 I'd get 460 miles or so. I don't see how anyone claims good gas milage out of a 4cyl truck. My grandma had a Nissan 2.4l auto that got 17mpg no matter how it was driven. driving the 05' and a 3.0, it was a night and day diffrence and the 3.0 isn't known as a powerhouse, its known for its reliability.
Dusty
The 4.0l I have driven have been autos and they all got 20-21mpg and had ample power, the standards should be better in both areas
Dusty
The 4.0l I have driven have been autos and they all got 20-21mpg and had ample power, the standards should be better in both areas
Quote:
I don't see how anyone claims good gas milage out of a 4cyl truck.
Easy; I get 31mpg on the highway. EPA rated (old system) @ 29mpg.
Quote:
I had it foot to the floor just to maintain 65mph.. It has a 20.? gallon tank and he is lucky to get 250 miles between fillups
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
I don't see how anyone claims good gas milage out of a 4cyl truck.
Easy; I get 31mpg on the highway. EPA rated (old system) @ 29mpg.
Quote:
I had it foot to the floor just to maintain 65mph.. It has a 20.? gallon tank and he is lucky to get 250 miles between fillups
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
Agreed. Something is very wrong.
Even the 120 HP 2.5 in my old Ranger had no trouble reaching its 97 MPH top speed, which was electronically limited.
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
Agreed. Something is very wrong.
Even the 120 HP 2.5 in my old Ranger had no trouble reaching its 97 MPH top speed, which was electronically limited.
Thanks ya'll for the great info!... I'm leaning on the 4.0 motor and maybe the 3 liter.
Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
Agreed. Something is very wrong.
Even the 120 HP 2.5 in my old Ranger had no trouble reaching its 97 MPH top speed, which was electronically limited.
Definitely something wrong.
My mother was a parts delivery driver for O'Reilly before retiring last year. She liked her MZR 2.3 powered Ranger better than the Vulcan. It was, and I quote, "Peppier."
In all fairness, that was with a load that could have just as easily been carried in a Yaris. I'm sure with a heavy load the Vulcan would do better.
Originally Posted By: simple_gifts
I will suggest there is something seriously wrong with your friend's vehicle. A DOHC 2.3 doesn't get 12mpg.
BTW, I can easily reach 90mph in my B2300.
Agreed. Something is very wrong.
Even the 120 HP 2.5 in my old Ranger had no trouble reaching its 97 MPH top speed, which was electronically limited.
Definitely something wrong.
My mother was a parts delivery driver for O'Reilly before retiring last year. She liked her MZR 2.3 powered Ranger better than the Vulcan. It was, and I quote, "Peppier."
In all fairness, that was with a load that could have just as easily been carried in a Yaris. I'm sure with a heavy load the Vulcan would do better.
We had an 02 Automatic 3.0L Ranger. Decent power and very reliable. We had a remanufactured automatic put in it because the previous owner overloaded it too much and killed it. Past that, the truck was wonderful. A few weeks ago we bought a brand new 11 Automatic 2.3L Ranger. Excellent power and very good fuel economy so far. We're getting 26-28 on short trips. So far we are very pleased. 2011 is also the first year for 4 wheel disc brakes and vehicle stability control for all units.
Ford has been building these things since 1983 (albeit with some "freshenings" and improvements along the way)...they should be darn near perfect by now. Although a reliable vehicle with a good reputation, it's replacement is long overdue (just don't replace it with something like the Colorado).
I really like mine. It has the 2.3 duratec with an A/T. Wish the gas mileage was a little better though. 21.9-25 is typical.
Bought a '99 2.5 5 speed in May with 118k.
Averaging 26mpg as long as I stay under 70mph.
Good truck so far, changed all the fluids, about to replace timing belt.
Averaging 26mpg as long as I stay under 70mph.
Good truck so far, changed all the fluids, about to replace timing belt.
- Status
